Scholarlink

<p>Despite prevalent public support for solar energy, recurring local pushback over siting underscores the need to explore how ecological risk, procedural fairness, and community values influence acceptance. This study analyzes 52 public comments on the proposed Vista Sands Solar Project in Wisconsin using a hybrid framework that integrates the Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy model with Framing Theory. Findings show widespread support for renewable energy, but acceptance becomes conditional when projects are perceived to disrupt ecosystems, undermine place-based identity, weaken procedural legitimacy, create distributive inequities, or rely on inadequate risk mitigation. The most prominent themes—siting conflict (22.8%), ecological impacts (21.9%), and procedural legitimacy (19.1%)—align closely with dominant comment tones of strong opposition (32.5%) and cautious support (35.8%). A Kruskal–Wallis test indicates marginal variation in sentiment across themes (H = 10.26, <i>p</i> = 0.068), suggesting that discursive tone is more closely tied to specific concerns than to generalized attitudes toward solar energy. Opposition was frequently spoken through affective and moral claims rooted in intergenerational land stewardship and concern for species such as the Greater Prairie-Chicken, while conditional support depended on credible mitigation measures, procedural transparency, and just siting practices. Overall, the hybrid framework proves how structural governance processes and culturally embedded narratives co-create social acceptance. To ensure durable legitimacy, renewable energy planning must engage local ecological knowledge, address procedural and distributive inequities, and acknowledge siting trade-offs using frameworks such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) to align nature-related risk management with institutional decision-making and community expectations.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Contested energy transitions: framing public acceptance of solar development in ecologically sensitive areas in Wisconsin

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月20日

查看全文
  • Hadi Veisi

摘要

Despite prevalent public support for solar energy, recurring local pushback over siting underscores the need to explore how ecological risk, procedural fairness, and community values influence acceptance. This study analyzes 52 public comments on the proposed Vista Sands Solar Project in Wisconsin using a hybrid framework that integrates the Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy model with Framing Theory. Findings show widespread support for renewable energy, but acceptance becomes conditional when projects are perceived to disrupt ecosystems, undermine place-based identity, weaken procedural legitimacy, create distributive inequities, or rely on inadequate risk mitigation. The most prominent themes—siting conflict (22.8%), ecological impacts (21.9%), and procedural legitimacy (19.1%)—align closely with dominant comment tones of strong opposition (32.5%) and cautious support (35.8%). A Kruskal–Wallis test indicates marginal variation in sentiment across themes (H = 10.26, p = 0.068), suggesting that discursive tone is more closely tied to specific concerns than to generalized attitudes toward solar energy. Opposition was frequently spoken through affective and moral claims rooted in intergenerational land stewardship and concern for species such as the Greater Prairie-Chicken, while conditional support depended on credible mitigation measures, procedural transparency, and just siting practices. Overall, the hybrid framework proves how structural governance processes and culturally embedded narratives co-create social acceptance. To ensure durable legitimacy, renewable energy planning must engage local ecological knowledge, address procedural and distributive inequities, and acknowledge siting trade-offs using frameworks such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) to align nature-related risk management with institutional decision-making and community expectations.